I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The South Korean government makes an announcement as if it had just reached an agreement for a peace treaty
The South Korean side's recent insistence on an agreement in principle between the United States, China, and North Korea to end the Korean War appears to be referring to an armistice agreement. The agreement stipulates that the two countries ``guarantee a complete cessation of acts of war and all use of force in Korea until a final peace settlement is reached.''
This interpretation is that the armistice agreement means a temporary cessation of the use of force toward a peaceful resolution, and that an agreement in principle has been reached toward an end to the war.
An armistice agreement that has become a mere shell
Section １３(d) of the Armistice Agreement stipulated that North and South Korea should not bring new weapons to the Korean peninsula, other than to redeploy damaged or worn-out equipment, but the United States abolished this. In １９５８, the nuclear-armed MGR-１ and M６５ ２８０mm cannon were deployed to South Korea, and a year later they were joined by the nuclear-armed MGM-１, which had China and the Soviet Union within range.
In １９７５, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting the replacement of the Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty and the dissolution of the United Nations Forces.
In １９８７, President Ronald Reagan refused talks toward a peace treaty, citing the Korean Air Incident.
In ２００９, North Korea announced that it considered the armistice agreement no longer valid.
MEMO
The Armistice Agreement appears to be in a state of abandonment, and the current situation is not a truce under the Armistice Agreement, but rather a state that has not yet led to war.
In March ２０１８, Xi Jinping called for a ``new security framework'' with the United States that would include a peace agreement among the four countries: the United States, China, North Korea, and South Korea, but former US President Trump did not indicate his approval or disapproval.
In April ２０１８, U.S. President Trump welcomed South Korea's intention to convert the armistice into a peace agreement at the inter-Korean summit. Moon Jae-in and Chairman Kim Jong-un agreed to actively promote trilateral talks between the South, North Korea, and the United States, as well as four-party talks between the South, North Korea, the United States, and China, aimed at building peace.
If you want to conclude a peace treaty, you can do it between North and South.
As a matter of fact, no basic agreement has been reached by the four parties. If I had to say it, we only agreed on the direction based on the interpretation of the Armistice Agreement. An agreement comes with agreed terms.
First of all, it is necessary to agree on the conditions, but there is no such agreement.
In fact, the Armistice Agreement has become a mere shell, and the interests of the signatory countries have changed. It would be better for the US and Russia to leave North Korea as a buffer zone.
Once the two countries, North and South, conclude a peace treaty, that will be the end. I find it strange that the situation can't be done between the two countries because of the armistice agreement. Rather, it seems like they are asking for help because they are unable to have dialogue between the two Koreas.
Is there any meaning in a peace treaty in a relationship where dialogue is impossible?
POINT
When you ask Koreans this question, the majority of them are of the opinion that a peace treaty cannot be concluded without the consent of the signatories of the Armistice Agreement. Both South and North Korea are independent states, so it is possible to conclude treaties between the two countries.
